Boris Johnson is being asked to at least apologise, at worst resign or be sacked over the piece he wrote in Mondays Daily Telegraph.He likened Burka wearing women to resembling bank robbers and letter boxes.

Should May get rid of bungling Boris, or will this just enhance his popularity with his following?

By your reckoning, beards should be banned. The point is, the face cover is the least of he teller's problems when he's got a gun in his face.

It's a surrogate argument for white supremacy. Attack the clothing of people of color, and create a dog whistle issue. When Trayvon Martin was murdered, many knuckle-draggers were quick to criticize his hoodie sweatshirt because it hid his face...um, not that anyone could recognize him--they all look alike and all.

Beards don't cover a whole face though. The point is that your comparisons were silly.

Zimmerman was then found "not guilty" under Florida law, because of the salient fact that rich racist fuckers in Florida are legally entitled to shoot black people at a distance, ostensibly on the grounds that "those people scare me !"..

It is quite telling that the court's jury only found Zimmerman "not guilty" of breaking Florida law == he still hasn't been declared "innocent" of committing that murder.

(Also, the mis-trial that let 'OJ' Simpson get away with murdering his wife comes to mind, as well -- but then, Raggs' won't have any trouble finding a dark-skinned person guilty of murder..).

_________________It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.Henry David Thoreau

He should not be working for the Telegragh for 2 years, or without prior approval from the party.

Boris has already broken the Consevative rules by not getting approval for his Telegragh contract. He has now followed that up by seemingly breaching the party's own code of conduct.If he keeps digging, he may well be thrown out of the party.Which could be precisely what he wants, as he is now more UKIP than Tory.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45130532

_________________I have never met a caring sharing and compassionate Tory.Tories and far right wingers. All liars and only it it for themselves.

Of course its important if there is truth or not in what someone says what ever circumstance it may be. There is far too much avoidance, saying nothing at all, weasel words and downright lying going on these days.

Yet, so appropriate. The idiocy is in the original premise put forth by Boris. What he is saying, ultimately, is that a cultural identity should be obliterated.

As I've pointed out, it's pretextual reasoning. Boris doesn't care any more about gender rights than you. It's a phony cigar, to get at his hatred of people of color. He doesn't care about burkas. He wants to criticize the people who wear them.

As for women's rights, you are being ethnocentric. You are leveling western, white-supremacist values on other cultures, as if they give a shit. Probably the strongest defense of burkas comes from the Muslim women themselves, who feel safer and more secure in them. And yes, they think the mystery of it all is quite feminine.

Why not leave 'em alone and let them have their own values. We tolerate radical women's fashions all right. We've survived bikinis and short-shorts. What's with this sudden proscription of womens wear when it comes to burkas? After all, who made you god?

Muslim women also hate the full veil. They ripped them off and burned the damned things when IS finally got defeated in their areas.

Like I said, it's their choice. Nobody is saying they can't wear them, not even Boris.

As for God. Nature gave us faces. For a reason. It's how we interact. Taking that away from someone isn't emancipation.

One has to ask too why a woman would feel safer hidden beneath a full body veil? The whole foundation of that is an affront to human rights.

What makes me laugh is that certain Muslim countries would not afford the same freedom to non-Muslim women's 'rights' to not wear the veil in that country. We'd have to adhere to their laws and societal shibboleths or face the consequences. So all the pearl clutching over this is more than a little hypocritical.

Women have had a long hard fight to gain equality with men. It's still ongoing.

So says the western white person. And while we're at it, let's force feed them McDonald's hamburgers, Diet Coke and Twinkies.

God! You Brits lag sooo far behind in your awareness of cultural anthropology. What do they teach at your universities...how to build with blocks? Did you honestly say: "Nature gave us faces. For a reason." Nature has intentions? So, you are anthropomorphising nature? Say 'Hi' to her (or is it him?) for me next time you speak.

Apparently, I wasn't clear in my previous post:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of ethnocentric: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior— ethnocentricity play \ˌeth-nō-sen-ˈtri-sə-tē\ noun

Each culture has it's own values, beliefs and symbols. No one culture is better than another. One symbol of the Muslim culture is the burka. But HT, you are of the opinion that your culture's symbols are superior.

So, let's put them in bikinis or force them to wear silly hats with bananas and grapes, as they are in the west now, and they should abide by western standards. What makes you so superior? Why are the silly hats worn in your country better than a burka? The world as grown smaller--which you acknowledge and accept by being on a computer talking to someone in real time 6,000 miles away--so you've got to accept that you are going to bump into another culture now and then.

Tommy Monk wrote:Am I free to say what I think somebody looks like... regarding how they are dressed... or not...?

Do I have a right to my personal opinion... and the freedom to express my view... or not...?

If people can wear what they want... without caring what the opinions of others are... then others can have opinions they want without caring too... can't they...?

Yes we are all free to comment on what someone looks like, the point is there is a way of doing it without upsetting certain groups of people....especially if you have a following and write for a national newspaper.

Do you often pass comment on complete strangers walking down the street minding their own business?Thats what Boris Johnson has done....only he has used his position to say it more publicly. He has the right to comment on the garment, I just dont think he is right to comment on the women who wear it making derogatory remarks about them.

A bit like comment on the post not the poster.......comment on the garment not the wearer of it.

magica wrote:What Boris said was true. We wouldn't walk around with balaclava on. How the hell they drive with slits beats me. How can you see clearly.

There's no place in Europe for these oppressive burkas. If they want to wear them why didn't they stay in a Muslim country.

I agree they shouldn't be allowed to drive in them, they should also remove them for security reasons when asked and obviously for certain jobs, I dont think thats the issue though Mags.

To ban an item of clothing is as oppressive as to insist it must be worn, and many Muslim women say they wear it by choice.

You may not like them personally....Im not struck on fat white women wearing high cut tops and low slung jeans sporting a great expanse of white wrinkly belly, but if thats their choice let them get on with it.

Syl wrote:You may not like them personally....Im not struck on fat white women wearing high cut tops and low slung jeans sporting a great expanse of white wrinkly belly, but if thats their choice let them get on with it.

Several Muslim Countries have banned the Burka,Morocco, one of the most Muslim of Countries have banned it. If Women want to wear it,let them fuck off to a Country that allows it. [It frightens the Horses by the way]

Muslim women also hate the full veil. They ripped them off and burned the damned things when IS finally got defeated in their areas.

Like I said, it's their choice. Nobody is saying they can't wear them, not even Boris.

As for God. Nature gave us faces. For a reason. It's how we interact. Taking that away from someone isn't emancipation.

One has to ask too why a woman would feel safer hidden beneath a full body veil? The whole foundation of that is an affront to human rights.

What makes me laugh is that certain Muslim countries would not afford the same freedom to non-Muslim women's 'rights' to not wear the veil in that country. We'd have to adhere to their laws and societal shibboleths or face the consequences. So all the pearl clutching over this is more than a little hypocritical.

Women have had a long hard fight to gain equality with men. It's still ongoing.

So says the western white person. And while we're at it, let's force feed them McDonald's hamburgers, Diet Coke and Twinkies.

God! You Brits lag sooo far behind in your awareness of cultural anthropology. What do they teach at your universities...how to build with blocks? Did you honestly say: "Nature gave us faces. For a reason." Nature has intentions? So, you are anthropomorphising nature? Say 'Hi' to her (or is it him?) for me next time you speak.

Apparently, I wasn't clear in my previous post:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of ethnocentric: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior— ethnocentricity play \ˌeth-nō-sen-ˈtri-sə-tē\ noun

Each culture has it's own values, beliefs and symbols. No one culture is better than another. One symbol of the Muslim culture is the burka. But HT, you are of the opinion that your culture's symbols are superior.

So, let's put them in bikinis or force them to wear silly hats with bananas and grapes, as they are in the west now, and they should abide by western standards. What makes you so superior? Why are the silly hats worn in your country better than a burka? The world as grown smaller--which you acknowledge and accept by being on a computer talking to someone in real time 6,000 miles away--so you've got to accept that you are going to bump into another culture now and then.

I can't help wondering whether we would be seeing the same sort of interest and reaction from certain quarters if a prominent Muslim figure lampooned Roman Catholic priests for wearing "white lacy frocks that make them look like girls."?

Didge wrote:I appluad Boris here for saying what needs to be said in regards to a symbol of oppression.

He was commenting on the women who wear it.

For once PC, had two fingers solidly stuck up to it and for once someone said the right thing.

You can call it not being PC, others would say he was treating the women with disdain.

I think women should be able to wear what they want, but I have every right to ridicule and be critical of Beliefs, that demean and subjucate women. The Burka is part of a barbaric belief system.

You can say what you want about the garment....leave the women alone.

Wahabbism

The burka is not religious, but political and is forced upon many women. Its a symbol of Wahhabism, that teaches hate against homosexuals, Jews, apostates, Non-Muslims etc etc.

Trying to dictate to people what NOT to wear is as bad as trying to dictate what TO wear.

Thus anyone defending the Burka, is defending Wahhabism and Islamism

I defend a womans right to choose.What next will be up for ridicule, Sikhs turbans, Indian sari's? The list could be endless....lets mock the people who dont dress like you do.

1) He was commenting on the oppreessive garment

2) Well Wahhabism does treat already women with disdain, being the fact this garment is enforced upon women. With a view they cannot be seen together with a male, who is not a family member. They cannot sit together with men and even pray with them together in public. So to claim its treating women poorly to be critical of such an oppressive symbol of control and the demeasning of women. Is as fucked as an PC leftist can get

3) Nobody is attacking the women, but the belief, the sympbol and the fact it is used to oppress and control women

4) Lies, as again i am not trying to tell anyone what to wear, but rightly show what this outfit represents. Just as anyone would if someone was wearing a Nazi Uniform or the KKK outfit. They all represent hate and oppression

Hence I am not dictating anything, you invented that in your head. I am condemning the belief system and this garment is a symbol of this oppressive belief system, called Wahhabism

5) Then why are these women not standing up for those forced to wear?

Surely, if as you claim, they have a choice. Why are they not makingh a stand and choosing not wear, until women are not forced to wear?

That then would be a real choice, but they wont and do you know why?

Because those who wear this and follow Salafism, believe also that all Muslim women should be wearing this oppressive outfit.

They believe that Homosexuality should be punishable by death

They believe women should be stoned to death for adultery

That is the belief system you want to defend here through the symbol of this oppressive political garment

Again for the clearly very simple minded.

I have stated many times, its up to women what they want to wear.

I am being critical of what is being worn, because its a political symbol that oppresses women and that many women are being forced to wear.

You would rather have the small minute amount that claim to choose to want to wear, to have more rights here, over those forced to wear.

Now I do not think it should be banned and that reason is the best way to combat this hateful symbol, but think about what you are defending.

By saying you defend the right of this Salafist to wear and not banning. You are ensuring countless Muslim women will be condemned and be forced to wear..

Hence you place them second to those who claim to choose to wear. As if you banned this. Then no more women would be oppressed being forced to wear and it would then only inconvenience those who claim to want to

So what is better here for you in either case?

Go figure

Last edited by Didge on Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

Tommy Monk wrote:Only as an extension of the fact that it is some moslem women who wear the garments...

It is often said that garments nuns wear makes them look like penguins... but never seen any 'outrage' about that...

But this is about the completely unnatural & unnecessary covering of the face...!

Not clothing in general.

Nuns in general are respected in society. There is already an element of society that distrust Muslims....making derogatory remarks about the women who dress a certain way is hardly the way to bring peace of mind to them is it?

So says the western white person. And while we're at it, let's force feed them McDonald's hamburgers, Diet Coke and Twinkies.

God! You Brits lag sooo far behind in your awareness of cultural anthropology. What do they teach at your universities...how to build with blocks? Did you honestly say: "Nature gave us faces. For a reason." Nature has intentions? So, you are anthropomorphising nature? Say 'Hi' to her (or is it him?) for me next time you speak.

Apparently, I wasn't clear in my previous post:

Each culture has it's own values, beliefs and symbols. No one culture is better than another. One symbol of the Muslim culture is the burka. But HT, you are of the opinion that your culture's symbols are superior.

So, let's put them in bikinis or force them to wear silly hats with bananas and grapes, as they are in the west now, and they should abide by western standards. What makes you so superior? Why are the silly hats worn in your country better than a burka? The world as grown smaller--which you acknowledge and accept by being on a computer talking to someone in real time 6,000 miles away--so you've got to accept that you are going to bump into another culture now and then.

Tommy Monk wrote:Only as an extension of the fact that it is some moslem women who wear the garments...

It is often said that garments nuns wear makes them look like penguins... but never seen any 'outrage' about that...

But this is about the completely unnatural & unnecessary covering of the face...!

Not clothing in general.

Nuns in general are respected in society. There is already an element of society that distrust Muslims....making derogatory remarks about the women who dress a certain way is hardly the way to bring peace of mind to them is it?

You are ignoring his point that Nuns have been ridiculed based on their attire

I defend a womans right to choose.What next will be up for ridicule, Sikhs turbans, Indian sari's? The list could be endless....lets mock the people who dont dress like you do.

1) He was commenting on the oppreessive garment

2) Well Wahhabism does treat already women with disdain, being the fact this garment is enforced upon women. With a view they cannot be seen together with a male, who is not a family member. They cannot sit together with men and even pray with them together in public. So to claim its treating women poorly to be critical of such an oppressive symbol of control and the demeasning of women. Is as fucked as an PC leftist can get

3) Nobody is attacking the women, but the belief, the sympbol and the fact it is used to oppress and control women

4) Lies, as again i am not trying to tell anyone what to wear, but rightly show what this outfit represents. Just as anyone would if someone was wearing a Nazi Uniform or the KKK outfit. They all represent hate and oppression

Hence I am not dictating anything, you invented that in your head. I am condemning the belief system and this garment is a symbol of this oppressive belief system, called Wahhabism

5) Then why are these women not standing up for those forced to wear?

Surely, if as you claim, they have a choice. Why are they not makingh a stand and choosing not wear, until women are not forced to wear?

That then would be a real choice, but they wont and do you know why?

Because those who wear this and follow Salafism, believe also that all Muslim women should be wearing this oppressive outfit.

They believe that Homosexuality should be punishable by death

They believe women should be stoned to death for adultery

That is the belief system you want to defend here through the symbol of this oppressive political garment

Again for the clearly very simple minded.

I have stated many times, its up to women what they want to wear.

I am being critical of what is being worn, because its a political symbol that oppresses women and that many women are being forced to wear.

You would rather have the small minute amount that claim to choose to want to wear, to have more rights here, over those forced to wear.

Now I do not think it should be banned and that reason is the best way to combat this hateful symbol, but think about what you are defending.

By saying you defend the right of this Salafist to wear and not banning. You are ensuring countless Muslim women will be condemned and be forced to wear..

Hence you place them second to those who claim to choose to wear. As if you banned this. Then no more women would be oppressed being forced to wear and it would then only inconvenience those who claim to want to

So what is better here for you in either case?

Go figure

I haven't told any lies, I was speaking generally, why do you always take things so personally?Women will state freely that it is their choice to wear the burka......it isnt banned here, so why constantly ridicule the women who choose to wear it?.Some say it gives them a feeling of security and safety, they dont want to be looked at by men in the street....if thats their choice leave them alone.

If a woman IS being forced to wear it (as you keep insisting they are) the rot is set far deeper than an item of clothing, and there is help for women in the UK if they ask for it.

Nuns in general are respected in society. There is already an element of society that distrust Muslims....making derogatory remarks about the women who dress a certain way is hardly the way to bring peace of mind to them is it?

You are ignoring his point that Nuns have been ridiculed based on their attire

I certainly havent ever read of a senior politician make fun of them or their attire.I havent read of any nuns being attacked in the street because of the clothes they are wearing....have you?

nicko wrote:Several Muslim Countries have banned the Burka,Morocco, one of the most Muslim of Countries have banned it. If Women want to wear it,let them fuck off to a Country that allows it. [It frightens the Horses by the way]

Any excuse to attack a cultural icon. You have never given a shit about horses before; why suddenly now?

2) Well Wahhabism does treat already women with disdain, being the fact this garment is enforced upon women. With a view they cannot be seen together with a male, who is not a family member. They cannot sit together with men and even pray with them together in public. So to claim its treating women poorly to be critical of such an oppressive symbol of control and the demeasning of women. Is as fucked as an PC leftist can get

3) Nobody is attacking the women, but the belief, the sympbol and the fact it is used to oppress and control women

4) Lies, as again i am not trying to tell anyone what to wear, but rightly show what this outfit represents. Just as anyone would if someone was wearing a Nazi Uniform or the KKK outfit. They all represent hate and oppression

Hence I am not dictating anything, you invented that in your head. I am condemning the belief system and this garment is a symbol of this oppressive belief system, called Wahhabism

5) Then why are these women not standing up for those forced to wear?

Surely, if as you claim, they have a choice. Why are they not makingh a stand and choosing not wear, until women are not forced to wear?

That then would be a real choice, but they wont and do you know why?

Because those who wear this and follow Salafism, believe also that all Muslim women should be wearing this oppressive outfit.

They believe that Homosexuality should be punishable by death

They believe women should be stoned to death for adultery

That is the belief system you want to defend here through the symbol of this oppressive political garment

Again for the clearly very simple minded.

I have stated many times, its up to women what they want to wear.

I am being critical of what is being worn, because its a political symbol that oppresses women and that many women are being forced to wear.

You would rather have the small minute amount that claim to choose to want to wear, to have more rights here, over those forced to wear.

Now I do not think it should be banned and that reason is the best way to combat this hateful symbol, but think about what you are defending.

By saying you defend the right of this Salafist to wear and not banning. You are ensuring countless Muslim women will be condemned and be forced to wear..

Hence you place them second to those who claim to choose to wear. As if you banned this. Then no more women would be oppressed being forced to wear and it would then only inconvenience those who claim to want to

So what is better here for you in either case?

Go figure

I haven't told any lies, I was speaking generally, why do you always take things so personally?Women will state freely that it is their choice to wear the burka......it isnt banned here, so why constantly ridicule the women who choose to wear it?.Some say it gives them a feeling of security and safety, they dont want to be looked at by men in the street....if thats their choice leave them alone.

If a woman IS being forced to wear it (as you keep insisting they are) the rot is set far deeper than an item of clothing, and there is help for women in the UK if they ask for it.

Yes you have with repeating and claiming I am against women being able to wear what they want. Even though I have stated it many times

You then hope to deflect and talk about me

You have just gone off women again and say I am ridiculing them, when I am ridiculing the belief and outfit the symbol of this oppressive belief. That is not ridiculing the woman, is it?

I could not give a flying rats arse what it does for them

How about you actually answer my points?

I am not just talking about the UK but globally

Now again and i will say it very slowly this time.

Do you back and allow this burka to remain to be able to be worn and thus continue to condemn millions of women being forced to wear this. Thus also supporting a symbol of oppression to be worn, that basically sticks two fingers up and women. Stating clearly as a symbol, that women are sexual objects that need to be covered up?

Or do you rightly condemn such an oppressive belief by banning this Burka, freeing millions of Muslim women being forced to wear and end up inconveniencing the Salafists who want to wear ( I say want, they are in fear if they do not)?

Odd that Boris hasn't bothered to either defend his remarks or apologise for them.He is probably rubbing his hands with glee that every radio talk station and many of the national papers (and some debate forums) are dissecting his words and what action should be taken.

lets face it western women are banned from wearing what THEY want when visiting Muslim countries , so......

or is the traffic only one way??

No, it is about being an advanced nation, with principles based upon reason. We all know there are cultures that are less open in their approach. Are we to follow them, then? That's a lousy excuse.

Lord Foul wrote:I for one would not under ANY circumstance interact with anyone wearing the full burka or even the one with the eye slits (whtever its called...) no probs with the ones that show the full face.

and No quill you cretin a beard does NOT hide facial expression to the extent of rendering the face unreadable, except in some (rare) extreme circumstances.

Bullshite. A beard completely alters the skeletal shape of the face. It can widen the jaw, and elongate the vertical axis, depending on how it is shaped. It's worse than the burka, in that it not only hides, it deceives.

Ah Denmark, what a country. If any society breathes the spirit of liberty, this is it.

It was only a few weeks ago that I was in Copenhagen for some international conference, and as ever I rose early and went for a run. As I passed through some yuppie zone of warehouse conversions and posh restaurants I saw to my amazement that the Danes had also got up early for exercise – and they were diving stark naked into the bracing waters of the harbour. And I thought to myself – that’s the Danes for you; that’s the spirit of Viking individualism. I mean, we have a climate warmer than Denmark; but even so, would you expect to see Brits disrobing and plunging into the waters of Canary Wharf, or even Greenwich? We are pretty easy-going, but not that easy-going.

Denmark is the only country in Europe, as far as I know, that still devotes a large proportion of its capital city to an anarchist commune, called Christiania, where I remember spending a happy afternoon 25 years ago inhaling the sweet air of freedom. It is the Danes who still hold out against all sorts of EU tyrannies, large and small.

They still chew their lethal carcinogenic tobacco; they still eat their red-dyed frankfurters; they still use the krone rather than the euro; they still refuse to let foreigners buy holiday homes in Jutland; and of course it was the heroic population of Denmark that on that magnificent day in June 1992 stuck two fingers up to the elites of Europe and voted down the Maastricht treaty – and though that revolt was eventually crushed by the European establishment (as indeed, note, they will try to crush all such revolts), that great nej to Maastricht expressed something about the Danish spirit: a genial and happy cussedness and independence.

It is a spirit you see everywhere on the streets of Copenhagen in the veneration for that supreme embodiment of vehicular autonomy, the bicycle. The Danes don’t cycle with their heads down, grimly, in Lycra, swearing at people who get in their way. They wander and weave helmetless down the beautiful boulevards on clapped-out granny bikes, with a culture of cycling in which everyone is treated with courtesy and respect. Yes, if you wanted to visit a country that seemed on the face of it to embody the principles of JS Mill - that you should be able to do what you want provided you do no harm to others – I would advise you to head for wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen.

So I was a bit surprised to see that on August 1 the Danes joined several other European countries – France, Germany, Austria, Belgium – in imposing a ban on the niqab and the burka – those items of Muslim head-gear that obscure the female face. Already a fine of 1000 kroner – about £120 – has been imposed on a 28-year-old woman seen wearing a niqab in a shopping centre in the north eastern town of Horsholm. A scuffle broke out as someone tried to rip it off her head. There have been demonstrations, on both sides of the argument. What has happened, you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live?If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.

If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct. As for individual businesses or branches of government – they should of course be able to enforce a dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers; and that means human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions. It’s how we work.

All that seems to me to be sensible. But such restrictions are not quite the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.

I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam. If you go for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the flames of grievance. You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and you may simply make the problem worse. Like a parent confronted by a rebellious teenager determined to wear a spike through her tongue, or a bolt through her nose, you run the risk that by your heavy-handed attempt to ban what you see as a bizarre and unattractive adornment you simply stiffen resistance.

The burka and the niqab were certainly not always part of Islam. In Britain today there is only a tiny, tiny minority of women who wear these odd bits of headgear. One day, I am sure, they will go.

The Danes swim starkers in the heart of Copenhagen. If The Killing is to be believed, their female detectives wear Faroe sweaters on duty, as is their sovereign right. If Danish women really want to cover their faces, then it seems a bit extreme – all the caveats above understood – to stop them under all circumstances. I don’t propose we follow suit. A total ban is not the answer.

Most nuns these days wear an adapted habit, just ordinary clothes skirt blouse and sometimes a tunic and a headdress that could be a titular veil, I have never seen nuns with their faces completely covered.Some orders used to have quite elaborate headdresses which extended past the face, these were usually contemplative orders who used this kind of thing to enable them to concentrate on their prayers (their job was to pray for all mankind) and not to be disturbed by anything in their peripheral vision, they rarely left their convent, so few ever saw them to make comment on.Its one thing to allow people to keep their culture and customs, although many people are coming around to this being a negative thing for everyone in terms of intergration but I think its incumbent on people arriving here to understand that they are arriving in a country with different customs and culture and that does not make their way of life right and ours wrong because of the difference and that just as some dislike western dress and customs not everyone likes their ways, the face covering can be seen as rude or even insulting to many people. It's called give and take.

Vintage wrote:Most nuns these days wear an adapted habit, just ordinary clothes skirt blouse and sometimes a tunic and a headdress that could be a titular veil, I have never seen nuns with their faces completely covered.Some orders used to have quite elaborate headdresses which extended past the face, these were usually contemplative orders who used this kind of thing to enable them to concentrate on their prayers (their job was to pray for all mankind) and not to be disturbed by anything in their peripheral vision, they rarely left their convent, so few ever saw them to make comment on.Its one thing to allow people to keep their culture and customs, although many people are coming around to this being a negative thing for everyone in terms of intergration but I think its incumbent on people arriving here to understand that they are arriving in a country with different customs and culture and that does not make their way of life right and ours wrong because of the difference and that just as some dislike western dress and customs not everyone likes their ways, the face covering can be seen as rude or even insulting to many people. It's called give and take.